Obama Promises No Vouchers for Medicare . . . But Does it Anyway

One of the promises Obama made in his DNC speech was that he would not ever make Medicare into a voucher program. He said,

“I will never turn Medicare into a voucher. No American should ever have to spend their golden years at the mercy of insurance companies. They should retire with the care and the dignity they have earned. Yes, we will reform and strengthen Medicare for the long haul, but we’ll do it by reducing the cost of health care, not by asking seniors to pay thousands of dollars more. And we will keep the promise of Social Security by taking the responsible steps to strengthen it, not by turning it over to Wall Street.”

Evidently, when Obama says “never” as in, he will “never” turn Medicare into a voucher, he means “the next day,” because the day after Obama’s speech, the Department of Health and Human Services authorized a pilot “voucher” program that would for now affect about 2 million Medicare recipients. Money would be given to states to pay for private insurance coverage for those who were disabled or who were poor enough to be on both Medicare and Medicaid. These 2 million or so recipients would be booted out of the Medicare program and put on private insurance company policies managed by their respective states and paid for through funds provided by the federal government.

Health and Human Services has accepted applications from 18 different states seeking to participate in this program, and last month, Massachusetts became the first to be approved. States are looking forward to the cost savings supposedly associated with the program. California says it is poised to save $500 million a year.

So why has Obama been railing against Romney/Ryan for their supposed desire to turn Medicare into a “voucher” program and “end Medicare as we know it” when it’s already happening under his watch? Sure, liberals don’t call it a voucher program. But how is it much different from what Obama has accused the Romney/Ryan plan of doing?

Both plans offer what they call “premium support.” The difference between the two plans is that under the current “voucher” program being implemented, eligible people are forced out of Medicare if they meet a certain indigent or disability criteria and placed on state-approved managed care plans. The Romney/Ryan plan simply gives Medicare recipients the option to either stay in Medicare or to choose a private insurer. It doesn’t force anyone out. And even then, it’s only for those under 55.

So, while Obama continues to claim that Ryan’s plan will gut Medicare and turn it into a “voucher program”, Obama’s the only candidate running who has actually gutted it in order to pay for Obamacare, and now, he appears to be the only candidate that’s “turning Medicare into a voucher” and leaving the poorest seniors at the “mercy of insurance companies.”







Comments

comments

Posted in Healthcare, Politics Tagged with: , ,
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gerald-Scott/100002227796670 Gerald Scott

    This guy will say anything he thinks the public wants to hear. Bill Clinton is the same way as a matter of fact ole bongmeister Bill (high school nick name) even said it in an interview once. But Obama has blatantly done this time and again. I sure hope Romney has enough sense to use this to show the people what O is really doing.

  • Barbara

    The master of Machiavellian manipulation. And yet the democrats still refuse to see what a liar he is. He is pathetic.

  • conservative

    Unless I am mistaken, the vouchers system he is trying is for Medicaid not Medicare. It doesn’t really matter; he is still trying a system that he ranted against when suggested by Ryan.

  • LeSellers

    Why, o, why, does anyone think MediCare is a good idea?

    Before it was implemented, the average USmerican senior paid ~20% of his income for medical treatment and health care. Today, the average USmerican senior pays ~20% of his income for medical treatment and health care.

    The only ones who’ve benefited from MediDon’tCare are pharmaceutical companies, bureaucrats, and politicians. Doctors aren’t getting their regular fees, hospitals have to limit care (and that’s what we’ll all be facing when O’bamaCare gets into full effect) because they don’t get even the cost of providing care back from the government.

    MediDontCare should be scrapped as a dismal failure. Part Am, Part B, Part C, and Part D are all frauds perpetrated on USmerica by Democrats (and Republicans) who don’t understand economics in the least, and who don’t get why a doctor would rather not see patients who can’t pay.

    When it gets completely under weigh, O’bama care will result in far fewer doctors (and probably more lawyers), so there will be no “medical care” for anyone: there won’t be enough doctors to see the ill.

    Trying to repeal the Law of Supply’n’Demand is futile. It cannot be done. But O’bama and other socialists have been trying for decades, even centuries. We need more people to learn and understand that no government can give us what it first does not take from us, and take in far larger portions than it returns.

    Mr. O’bama, where are the Jobs?

  • Anniem

    Thank you for this educational informative piece. I will be sharing and passing it on.

  • Paula Crosslin

    The problem with Medicare is the doctors. I have been disabled for 9 years. During this time, I have had so many misdignoises that I figure about half of the money spent by medicare was for care I didn’t need. I just had a CT of my spine in May ’12. The results came back that the metal in my back looks fine….I HAVE NO METAL IN ME! PC

  • entitled

    Maybe someone should actually look at where our tax money is going with these programs to begin with. Let’s, for instance, take the biggest slice of the Medicare/Medicaid pie and look at dialysis. Automatically given for free to everyone, no matter their age, history, etc. thanks to a special Medicare act from the 1970s. Now, a doctor prescribes treatments 3 times a week for up to 4 1/2 hours each time. 4 out of 20 patients are “noncompliant” which means they don’t go to their treatments, or cut them short, or do other things to sabotage their care. These are the people that end up in emergency rooms and ICUs, which we pay for because… they are automatically on Medicare. So now WE’re paying for those bills because these people are deciding to skimp out on their treatments that WE are paying for. But there is no recourse. No one says, “Ms. Jones, you missed X many treatments and have ended up in the ICU X many times. Medicare will drop you and will no longer pay for your treatments if you continue this trend.” It’s the same with any specialty. Mr. Smith refuses to take his blood pressure medicine, here he is in the ER AGAIN. Ms. Smith will not check her blood sugar. Guess who pays for her amputation? We do. Why do the patients have no responsibility? No matter what some of these people do, they don’t worry about it because they know they will never have to foot the bill. If we made people accountable for their actions, spending on healthcare would go down dramatically.